Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc.

S.D. New York

Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc.

DecidedJuly 26, 2023

Docket1:18-cv-08188

StatusUnknown

This text of Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc. (Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc., (S.D.N.Y. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER S. FISCHMAN,

Plaintiff, -against- 18 CIVIL 8188 (JMF)

JUDGMENT MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL HOLDINGS AMERICA, INC. et al.,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 26, 2023, Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be and is GRANTED - in the case of Fischman's NYCHRL claims, without prejudice to refiling them in state court. Fischman's motions in limine, see ECF No. 132, are denied as moot. One final housekeeping matter remains. The Court previously deferred judgment on Defendants' motion for attorney's fees as a sanction for the allegedly forged Note produced by Fischman "until after summary judgment or trial, when the record is likely to be better developed on whether the Note is a forgery and the significance, if any, of that fact." Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chem. Holdings Am., Inc., No. 18-CV-8188 (JMF), 2022 WL 3646205, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2022). Based on its review of the record, the Court certainly harbors doubts about the authenticity of the Note. But the Court also harbors doubts about whether any sanction would be appropriate. As the Court previously noted, "[a]t most, Defendants allege that Fischman fabricated a single document and lied about doing so in her deposition. Moreover, the document is far from 'the linchpin' of Fischman's case." Id. (citation omitted). The Opinion and Order has confirmed that the Note is far from the linchpin of Fischman's case. Indeed, the Court was able to grant summary judgment without resolving whether the Note was authentic. That said, if Defendants wish to move for sanctions, the parties shall confer and propose an appropriate briefing schedule within two weeks of the date of the Opinion and Order. Judgment is entered in Defendants’ favor; accordingly, the case 1s closed. Dated: New York, New York July 26, 2023

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: = (NG VGO ‘Deputy Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------------------------------------X JENNIFER S. FISCHMAN,

Plaintiff, -against- 18 CIVIL 8188 (JMF)

JUDGMENT MITSUBISHI CHEMICAL HOLDINGS AMERICA, INC. et al.,

Defendants. -----------------------------------------------------------X It is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED: That for the reasons stated in the Court's Opinion and Order dated July 26, 2023, Defendants' motion for summary judgment must be and is GRANTED - in the case of Fischman's NYCHRL claims, without prejudice to refiling them in state court. Fischman's motions in limine, see ECF No. 132, are denied as moot. One final housekeeping matter remains. The Court previously deferred judgment on Defendants' motion for attorney's fees as a sanction for the allegedly forged Note produced by Fischman "until after summary judgment or trial, when the record is likely to be better developed on whether the Note is a forgery and the significance, if any, of that fact." Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chem. Holdings Am., Inc., No. 18-CV-8188 (JMF), 2022 WL 3646205, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 24, 2022). Based on its review of the record, the Court certainly harbors doubts about the authenticity of the Note. But the Court also harbors doubts about whether any sanction would be appropriate. As the Court previously noted, "[a]t most, Defendants allege that Fischman fabricated a single document and lied about doing so in her deposition. Moreover, the document is far from 'the linchpin' of Fischman's case." Id. (citation omitted). The Opinion and Order has confirmed that the Note is far from the linchpin of Fischman's case. Indeed, the Court was able to grant summary judgment without resolving whether the Note was authentic. That said, if Defendants wish to move for sanctions, the parties shall confer and propose an appropriate briefing schedule within two weeks of the date of the Opinion and Order. Judgment is entered in Defendants’ favor; accordingly, the case 1s closed. Dated: New York, New York July 26, 2023

RUBY J. KRAJICK Clerk of Court BY: = (NG VGO ‘Deputy Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Fischman v. Mitsubishi Chemical Holdings America, Inc., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fischman-v-mitsubishi-chemical-holdings-america-inc-nysd-2023.